Howaythelads

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish. And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher. so taking the club forward gets the owners a pat on the back, and failing to capitalise on it and going backwards is the fault of the players, nice one I don't believe I said that. It's always the players who play. I do believe however, that you are looking like one of those people who are unable to differentiate between the different roles of players and directors. Nor do you understand that major shareholders of a multi million pound company don't normally leave the entire major decisions to someone else, and don't have any input, but we know that you are only spouting this nonsense to satisfy your agenda. au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh? i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean? i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name' haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board. As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now. I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player. BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything. i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really s*** job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject. There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat. mackems.gif I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me. The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on him. What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness. Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder? again, i UNDERSTAND all of that, i just have a difference of opinion, but if it suits you, you're right, i'm wrong, sick of this now anyway and by the way i'm not a moaner, i am definitely a glass half full supporter, fred's a cunt I don't care whether you think I'm right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that your criticism of the previous board isn't based on how they performed in their relative roles, rather it's based on Fred being overweight.

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish. And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher. so taking the club forward gets the owners a pat on the back, and failing to capitalise on it and going backwards is the fault of the players, nice one I don't believe I said that. It's always the players who play. I do believe however, that you are looking like one of those people who are unable to differentiate between the different roles of players and directors. Nor do you understand that major shareholders of a multi million pound company don't normally leave the entire major decisions to someone else, and don't have any input, but we know that you are only spouting this nonsense to satisfy your agenda. au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh? i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean? i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name' haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board. As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now. I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player. BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything. i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really shit job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject. There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat. mackems.gif I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me. The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on him. What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness. Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder?

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish. And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher. so taking the club forward gets the owners a pat on the back, and failing to capitalise on it and going backwards is the fault of the players, nice one It is really quite shocking that you fail to grasp something that is so very, very easy to understand.

Just looked it up, I stand corrected. As he played competative football for the U21's, he can no longer play for Nigeria. TBH, who cares? Didn't Tim Cahill get that rule rescinded? Is he playing in the ACN as well?

I disagree johnny because at no point was Shepherd the majority shareholder. What we are talking about is not the shareprice or the fundamental profitability of the club but managerial decision making. You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think that the majority shareholder did not at least 'sign off' the decision. Well thats my experience of these things anyway. From an 'operational' perspective (day to day running), the decision making dynamic would have changed. However, thats never been a point of issue. The points of issue are managerial appointments and debt both of which are 'board level' decisions. We've been over this before. i don't agree that it's never been a point of issue, of course it has. i doubt the halls would've been too interested in denying robson prozone, making comments publicly undermining him or selling speed behind his back, day-to-day decisions. no one has said the other board members wouldn't have input in the managerial appointments or debt issues (tho how much the pickled douglas hall did is uncertain considering he visited SJP something like once in 5 years, hardly suggests he had a key role in grinding down the debt figures or fine combing through the details of prospective new managers) you also have the shift from the hall era of appointing professionals to the board and other executive roles like corbridge or fletcher (or shepherd even!), while under shepherd those figures were surgically removed one by one as shepherd's influence grew and grew, and the closest you got to an advisor was, errr, kenny shepherd? the ownership too under hall was different to that under shepherd, one example amongst many would be, under SJH, Hall was majority shareholder, under Shepherd he was not, you also had the plc to answer too whereas hall didn't have as much of that, so it's fair to say that you can divide into the SJH era and the Shepherd era into separate eras. likewise if ashley was to sack chris mort, and replace him with another chairman, you could divide those chairmanships too, even tho that is only one change with the rest of trhe club remaining identical, whereas the differences between the hall and shepherd era are much more vast and fundamental. Too.....many....words......not.....enough......spaces Urgggghh The longest sentence of 2007? most pointless post of 2007? It would have to be going some....

I wondered that, tbh.

we are talking about the performance on the field Johnny. Unless you think the chairman told the managers who to buy, who to play, etc etc, it boils down to the managers. This has been discussed, there is no way you can blame a chairman for players underperforming, as in 2 FA Cup Finals for instance. The job of the chairman and board stops at backing the manager, and that is what they have all done. They have all been backed with money and backing to put together teams good enough to have won trophies, and they have all won trophies previously to show that they also had the capability to do it. Especially Dalglish. And as we have also said, Sir John did not appoint Keegan, he didn't think of him, and he was outvoted when it came to appointing him, so you can't give him any credit for it, that goes to the 3 people who did ie Shepherd, hall Jnr and Fletcher. well i think i know better than to get embroiled in one of these legendary threads that go round in circles, but i will say that SJH rang up keegan himself to appoint him, so it is pushing it to say he didn't appoint him. it's also true that keegan was the brainchild of those mentioned, but the two aren't mutually exclusive in any way, they were part of the board, recommended something, and hall went with it. I was offered and accepted a job a number of years ago where later on it was made known to me by the person who made the job offer that his personal opinion at the interview was that I wasn't up to it. However, the decision was made by a panel and although he was the chairman of the panel the decision was based on a majority vote. He was admitting he had got it wrong and that the panel was right and that he was glad he was out-voted. You may think I'm waffling here, but I'm not.

I disagree johnny because at no point was Shepherd the majority shareholder. What we are talking about is not the shareprice or the fundamental profitability of the club but managerial decision making. You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think that the majority shareholder did not at least 'sign off' the decision. Well thats my experience of these things anyway. From an 'operational' perspective (day to day running), the decision making dynamic would have changed. However, thats never been a point of issue. The points of issue are managerial appointments and debt both of which are 'board level' decisions. We've been over this before. You saved me the trouble. Also, as you say, we've been over this before and yet here we are, having to go over it again because some people have an agenda they will not drop.

Mostly rubbish, tbh. If you're so embarrassed to be a Newcastle supporter (assuming you are for a moment) why not take off down to the Stadium of Shite and be embarrassed there?

Shepherd became chairman in 1997, after which we went backwards pretty much immediately (ie a full season later). When people refer to the previous board, they mean when Shepherd was in charge, not the John Hall era. No doubt you know that the club had the same "owners" all this time, therefore you'll agree that those people who think the way you describe are idiots.

Agreed.

Not only am I not arguing FOR the old board I'm not arguing AGAINST the new board. When you start to read properly and when you stop deliberately misrepresenting what people write I will start responding to your points properly. I'm not holding my breath. I think you need to get a book on the history of Newcastle United for Christmas, or read what is being written by NE5 without some automatic and negative reaction after the first sentence.

Agreed. It's not easy when people claim you've posted comment you haven't actually posted and are also unable to understand something you did post. I'm sure you agree. Yeah, but we could all cut each other a bit more slack.... Some people seem more interested in talking instead of listening. I'm NOT thinking of anyone in particular when i say that btw I'm not bothered if you are thinking of someone, tbh. I'm not paranoid enough to think it's me, but even if it is.....so what. It's a forum. Man.....it was a general comment, not directed at you or NE5 at all. I'm being genuine. Errr, I know. It's what I said.

Agreed. It's not easy when people claim you've posted comment you haven't actually posted and are also unable to understand something you did post. I'm sure you agree. Yeah, but we could all cut each other a bit more slack.... Some people seem more interested in talking instead of listening. I'm NOT thinking of anyone in particular when i say that btw I'm not bothered if you are thinking of someone, tbh. I'm not paranoid enough to think it's me, but even if it is.....so what. It's a forum.

Agreed. It's not easy when people claim you've posted comment you haven't actually posted and are also unable to understand something you did post. I'm sure you agree.

Crying Jesus etc. Not saying I disagree with you, but I swear I've heard it all before. Seemingly people either don't believe it or haven't seen it before, so it's worth repeating for those with their head up their arse.

I haven't made any arguments for the old board and against the new board. Just thought I'd let you know.

Good post.

Fair comment, and in my view, all those things are what good boards do, accepting that they made one s**** appointment that defied belief. Everybody makes mistakes, but the basic ambition was there, and that is paramount. I agree with everything you say here. Not biased. I hated Souness but would still have liked him to succeed because he was manager of Newcastle. I'm only biased because I want NUFC to win above anything, I wasn't particularly happy at appointing Roeder, but thought that he deserved a break, and the club trying something different was worth a stab, so yes you are correct in what you say. I also accepted in the end that he had to go and it hadn't worked out. I can't see that the current youth policy is different, because we have new owners, they are setting out their stall as to how they think the club can succeed, and basically, I don't agree with them that this will lead to automatic success, and in fact I don't think we will attract the best young players if the first team doesn't move upwards. I don't know. I was happy with Allardyce, and we knew he would get backing from the board so it was a matter of how he spent his money. At the moment, I am disappointed that Allardyce appears to be getting things wrong. Patience is one thing [and not all of us have it] but watching someone making obvious errors is something else entirely. I agree, I just want to see signs that the clubs owner and chairman understand what it takes to succeed, and Allardyce to show that he understands the game by recognising where we need players most and exercising good judgement in the transfer market. Just now, I don't see either, I'm not happy with what I'm seeing and hearing from both parties. At the risk of causing a new debate, isnt this the whole point? The current board dont sound look like they are wanting automatic success. Wouldnt that be the best for the club, as spending huge amounts of money constantly isnt a sustainable way to run a successful business. I agree that investment needs to be made, and i have confindence that the board will back where nexcessary but i dont believe that the board are looking for instant success. And personally, if 10 years down the line the club have progressed singnificantly and is in a very healthy situation then i would be happy. Proabably agree with the second point, although i cant help but think that a lot of youngsters would love to come to a club of this size. We do have an unnaturally large reputation! Blimey!

Absolute rubbish. Honestly.

No. I'm really not bothered as my main concern right now is the lack of creativity throughout the team. Ameobi scored goals in Europe but I wasn't fooled that he's a good player for the team so I wouldn't want him in it. Even if Smith was scoring a few goals, if his general team play was shite I wouldn't be impressed at all. I'm looking for an improvement in our general play, the shape and organisation of the team and our ability to control football matches and to do it consistently. All of these things have improved slightly by using Smith up front. Just slightly. I don't see the point in being critical of the bloke (and that's really what this thread is really about imo) or setting targets for him that will be used later to be critical of him when the fact is he's settling into a position he's not played on a regular basis. Scoring goals for Smith is going to be down to chances created for him by his team-mates and his own confidence in front of goal. So there needs to be a lot of improvement from more than just Smith for him to start scoring goals regularly. If the team doesn't get better he isn't going to score many. Overall I think he has the attributes to be given a chance and a run in that position so I wish him the best of luck.

Yeah. I can see us playing for a 0-0 with the hope of nicking a goal and winning 1-0. Great stuff.

Aye, I'm sure everyone agrees so how about giving him a chance, eh.....

Would you give a shit if we were winning? Well, he hasn't scored goals, and we havent been winning as well as we'd like. We have a really tough 2nd half of the season, and will need both strikers (and contributions from MF) if we are to pick up enough wins to finish in the top 8. That wasn't the question - just taking him to task regarding this goals thing, it's a load of bollocks. If a team is winning, it doesn't matter that one of your strikers isn't scoring. He is obviously contributing elsewhere, and others are obviously making up for his shortfall as the team is winning. Of course I appreciate that we aren't winning, or at least not consistently and as such Smith's lack of scoring becomes more of a problem. I'm certain he will score a few this season - bear in mind he has played what, 3 games up front this season? Give him a run of 10 starts on the trot up front, I would expect 1-3 goals from him, but I would also expect to see us winning and keeping the ball in opposition territory a lot more, leading to more goals from others. Another sensible post. Good stuff. The people who are only able to judge a footballer on stats will be cringing.

Always looking for the negative. Perhaps it said something about how Fergie saw his tenacity and leadership qualities, these being very good attributes for that area of the pitch. That's not looking for the negative, it's just saying it as it is. You yourself have said that he isn't a midfielder despite having those qualities. He's at his best up front but forwards of his type do need to contribute some goals. Around 10 would do, but if he was scoring double figures in a season I doubt Fergie would have wanted to part with him. He got 10 in his first season at ManU although he wasn't a regular starter. After that though Fergie, as has been said, panicked into trying to turn him into Keanes successor, so he never scored regularly again. I'm sure he could get a few for us if that was his role but that's not the way Sam plays the 433. At Bolton under Sam, Anelka and Diouf were perceived as more of a threat than Davies whose primary job it was to hold the ball up and lay it off for them. Heskey's goal scoring record for Liverpool and England was very poor but Owen scored a shit load because of his partnership with him. If Smith could do that here he'd be well worth his place in the team. Exactly.